The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order that banned the registration of e-rickshaws and e-autos in Mathura and Agra.
The Division Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Jayant Banerji passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Shree Vindavan Auto Sales.
Under challenge in some of these petitions is the Notification dated 07.11.2023 issued by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration/Registering Authority), Mathura.
In the petitions pertaining to District Agra, under challenge, is the Office Order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration/Registering Authority), Agra.
By these orders, registration of e-Rickshaw and e-Auto has been banned in Mathura and Agra, respectively, in purported exercise of powers under Rule 178 of the U.P Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998.
Although, the order states that this restriction is being imposed on account of mushrooming number of e-Rickshaw both in Agra and Mathura leading to incessant traffic jams. The petitioner, Agra eVahan Vyapar in Writ Petition is a registered Associations of e-Vehicles Dealers in Agra. All other petitioners are dealers in e-Rickshaw and e-Auto Rickshaw.
The primary contention of the petitioners is that the Motor Vehicle Act or the Rules framed thereunder be it the State Act or the Central Act, do not empower the registering authorities to put a blanket ban on the registration of new e-Rickshaw etc which is, in any case, violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents only in Writ Petition and has been sworn by the fifth respondent, the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration/ Registering Authority), Mathura.
The crux of the affidavit is that the traffic jams are occurring in Mathura city on account of an excess number of e-Rickshaws operating there and the operators are, in fact, flouting the traffic rules. It is also averaged that 14748 E-Rickshaws, 12346 Three-wheeler CNG AutoRickshaws and 695 total e-autos are operating and that more than 105 E-Rickshaw Dealerships are operating in Mathura.
It is also alleged that the E-Rickshaw drivers do not follow the traffic rules. They often move arbitrarily on routes other than the prescribed routes. ERickshaws are also alleged to be overloaded besides being used as goods carriers.
The Court observed that,
In the context of the submissions made, we have carefully examined Rule 178 relied upon by the respondents.
Its perusal reveals that the restrictions contemplated by Rule 178 are with regard to the speed or with regard to restricting or prohibiting use of motor vehicles, generally or any particular class or classes in any area or any road. This provision does not contemplate or empowers the respondents to ban registration of new vehicles. The impugned restriction is therefore, beyond the scope of Rule 178 and hence, unsustainable.
We are therefore constrained to hold that apart from the restriction on speed and or roads and area of operation, no other restriction has the sanction of law. Therefore, the impugned orders insofar as they ban registration of new e-rickshaws etc is without legal sanction.
“Although, it is sought to be contended that restrictions of registration of new motor vehicles is in public interest and to regulate the flow of traffic, the same does not improve the case of the respondents.
In case the situation gets out of hand, nothing prevents the legislature or the rule making authority from bringing about suitable enactments/ amendments in the existing statute or the rules framed therein to achieve the desired objectives which is also the mandate of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. However, the situation, however bad, cannot empower the authorities to exercise power or jurisdiction which they do not possess under the existing law or the rules.
The respondents without any authority have passed the impugned order(s). In its counter affidavit the concerned respondent has stated reasons which indicated failure on its part and on part of the administration to manage and control traffic and certain consequential law and order situations arising therefrom.
It has also cited lacunae and omissions in legislation that is hampering regulation of the e-rickshaws and checking on their drivers.
Such averments, allegations, apprehensions and expression of incapabilities cannot form the basis of arbitrary and illegal actions of issuance of the impugned notification and office order, which are also beyond jurisdiction”, the Court further observed while allowing the petition.
The Court quashed the Notification dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration/ Registering Authority), Mathura and the Office Order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration/Registering Authority), Agra.